Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Music Talk
Reload this Page >

Luther Vandross at #1? Please!

Music Talk Discuss music in all its forms: CD, MP3, DVD-A, SACD and of course live
View Poll Results: The prediction:
Luther Vandross will endure at the summit for two or more weeks
0
0%
He will remain in the Top 10 next week
6
50.00%
He will plummet out of the Top 10 next week
6
50.00%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Luther Vandross at #1? Please!

Old 06-20-03, 08:47 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 6,410
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Luther Vandross at #1? Please!

It's June, and that means lots of summer weddings. M-O-O-N, that spells summer weddings, laws yes! And that's the only reason I see for Luther Vandross to debut at the top of the Billboard Top 200 Album chart. He knocked Metallica to #2 and kept contemporary Radiohead to debut at #3

NEW> 1. Luther Vandross, Dance With My Father
2. Metallica, St. Anger
NEW> 3. Radiohead, Hail To The Thief

My prediction is that Vandross will slide down the chart as quick as a kid on a slide with butter on his ass. Next Thursday the new Billboard chart comes out, and I don't think we'll see Vandross in the Top 10 at all.

The title track to his new album is probably more boring than 1990's Here and Now.
Old 06-20-03, 08:55 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New Jersey, where the state motto should be Leave No Tree Standing
Posts: 2,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
He also debuted at #1 because he's been in a coma for over a month since having a stroke and it's been all over the news. People bought the album for sentimental reasons.
Old 06-20-03, 11:49 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Rogue588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
so, basically, you're upset that Metallica isn't number one for a second week?

or are you upset that Radiohead didn't hit number one*?

i'm going to assume you're not a Luther Vandross fan. i'm going to further assume that your "kid on a silde with butter on him ass" prediction will not come to pass. he'll certainly be in the 10 next week.

Just not at number one..

btw...I partially agree with RevLiver. His medical situation partly contributed for some sales...but, it wasn't the sole reason.

his last album, the first on his new record label, debuted at number 6 the first week it was released in 2001 [can't find the sales figures & I don't think bigjim25 was doing the Billboard charts back then]

* [If anything, the RIAA could use this as an example of the "evils" of filesharing...]
Old 06-20-03, 09:56 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 8,466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Basically J6P thinks it might be his last album. So...
Old 06-20-03, 10:09 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 6,410
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
What bothers me the most is that Luther Vandross never had a #1 album before now, and now he's so far beyond his prime it isn't even funny. In 50 years, people will look back and say, wow, Luther Vandross's "Dance With My Father" album was his big #1 album, so it must be his absolute best! Meanwhile, it is probably his absolute worst album.

I hate this. The charts have become a total misrepresentation of what's popular these days.

You look back as far as, say, 1991, and you'll see Skid Row at #1 with their album "Slave To The Grind." The album was, in fact, a dismal failure to their debut album two years earlier. Their debut self-titled album from 1989 sold millions, and even had two Top 10 hits. "Slave To The Grind" debuted at the top based solely on the success of their 1st album, and it is a total misrepresentation since the album totally sucked.

That's my point, and this time next week, we'll see my prediction about Vandross's album come true.
Old 06-20-03, 10:13 PM
  #6  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 15,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hey I thought Slave to the Grind was pretty cool back in the day!
Old 06-20-03, 11:18 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Rogue588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Buttmunker
What bothers me the most is that Luther Vandross never had a #1 album before now, and now he's so far beyond his prime it isn't even funny. In 50 years, people will look back and say, wow, Luther Vandross's "Dance With My Father" album was his big #1 album, so it must be his absolute best! Meanwhile, it is probably his absolute worst album.
Firstly, Luther, IMO, is hardly past his prime. I would listen to a song/album of his before I would most of [what passes for] R&B today. Also, if someone judges his "best" work by how many copies it sold, perhaps they should rethink why they're buying that album in the first place [or buy a GH...Luther has a couple].
I hate this. The charts have become a total misrepresentation of what's popular these days.
Actually, the charts are a total REPRESENTATION of what's popular...they're just not a representation of what's GOOD.
You look back as far as, say, 1991, and you'll see Skid Row at #1 with their album "Slave To The Grind." The album was, in fact, a dismal failure to their debut album two years earlier. Their debut self-titled album from 1989 sold millions, and even had two Top 10 hits. "Slave To The Grind" debuted at the top based solely on the success of their 1st album, and it is a total misrepresentation since the album totally sucked.[/B]
I think you're confusing quantity with quality. You think it was a "total misrepresentation" since you think it "totally sucked". Obviously there were enough people across the US who disagreed with you. Now...that doesn't mean once the suckers...err...people who bought it [of which I was one] were happy with it, it just meant one more sale was chalked up...and $$$ talks, bulls**t walks...

do you have a problem that Luther's in the top 10...? or just that he's number 1...?
Old 06-21-03, 12:34 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,469
Received 119 Likes on 85 Posts
I may not be a fan of Luther, mainly because I don't listen to R&B, but he's certainly better than most of the crap that's in the Top 40 now. That Justin freak from American Idol is at number #20? Now that's who you should be complaining about. It sounds to me like you've got a problem with age in general. Luther past his prime? Hardly. Did it tick you off that Fleetwood Mac debuted at number #3? They were in the Top 10 for a few weeks. They're still in the Top 40 now btw. I'm glad to see more seasoned and respected artists on the charts.
Old 06-21-03, 02:26 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Amazing as it sounds, people do like Luther Vandross' music. His health is also a concern and thus his name has been on people's mind and in there hearts.

As for metallica. I'm sorry, but that excuse for an album isn't worth being #1. I suppose TRL and MTV didn't do that great of a job pimping it out as they should have since the #1 spot is usually held by someone BECAUSE of the marketing and not because of the quality on the cd. Metallica burned a lot of bridges with their stance against their fans with the whole Napster issues so I don't see why it's such a surprise to see them not hold on to the spot.
Old 06-21-03, 03:09 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Rogue588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
from bigjim25's Billboard thread here
Despite being hospitalized, Luther Vandross scores his first No. 1 on The Billboard 200 with "Dance With My Father." The J Records set sold 442,000 copies in the U.S., according to Nielsen SoundScan, to give the R&B singer his best sales week in the SoundScan era.

Vandross suffered a stroke on April 16 and has been hospitalized in New York ever since. Last week he was moved out of the intensive care unit at Weill Cornell Medical College, and his business manager reported that his health was improving.

The first-week numbers for "Dance With My Father" more than double the opening week total of his 2001 self-titled J debut. That album opened with 135,000 copies and peaked at No. 6. "Dance With My Father" is the sixth album from Vandross to reach The Billboard 200's top-10. His previous chart high was No. 4 with 1994's "Songs" (Epic).

In a strong week for new releases, Vandross leads six albums into the top-10, including impressive first week sales for Radiohead, Annie Lennox and George Strait. But none were able to best the first full week of Metallica's "St. Anger" (Elektra). After racking up sales of 418,000 copies during a four-day sales period and debuting last week at No. 1, the album sold an additional 363,000 copies in its first full week in stores, and is No. 2 in its second week on the chart.
i'm more surprised at Annie Lennox's showing...
"Bare" (J Records), the first solo album in eight years from Eurythmics principal Lennox, lands at No. 4 on sales of 153,000 copies. Her 1995 set "Medusa" debuted and peaked at No. 11 with 73,000 copies sold.
weird...she's never had a number four solo album before...and after EIGHT years too...WAY past her prime, i'm sure...

hmm...
Old 06-21-03, 08:04 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 6,410
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I don't care a rip for Metallica or Radiohead, it's not that at all. I wouldn't care of they both fell out of the Top 40 tomorrow. I do have a problem with Luther being at #1 mainly because I feel an album should earn the right to sit at the throne. I wish that it could be like in the old days when an album had to make its bones and climb the chart as its popularity grew. In the 1960's and 1970's and even the 1980's, you didn't see an album in the Top 10 that didn't deserve to be there, let alone #1. Hell, in 1984, Huey Lewis & The News scored a #1 album with Sports, but it was not an overnight success. In fact, the album was already out a year, and it gained momentum through the singles that were released. It took the album's fourth single, If This Is It, to propel it to the top for one week.

When albums debut in the Top 10, I find it circumspect and doubt the vitality of the album until I hear word of mouth. Nowadays, almost anyone can have a hit album - but longevity? Hardly.
Old 06-21-03, 08:47 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,469
Received 119 Likes on 85 Posts
Originally posted by Buttmunker
I don't care a rip for Metallica or Radiohead, it's not that at all. I wouldn't care of they both fell out of the Top 40 tomorrow. I do have a problem with Luther being at #1 mainly because I feel an album should earn the right to sit at the throne. I wish that it could be like in the old days when an album had to make its bones and climb the chart as its popularity grew. In the 1960's and 1970's and even the 1980's, you didn't see an album in the Top 10 that didn't deserve to be there, let alone #1. Hell, in 1984, Huey Lewis & The News scored a #1 album with Sports, but it was not an overnight success. In fact, the album was already out a year, and it gained momentum through the singles that were released. It took the album's fourth single, If This Is It, to propel it to the top for one week.

When albums debut in the Top 10, I find it circumspect and doubt the vitality of the album until I hear word of mouth. Nowadays, almost anyone can have a hit album - but longevity? Hardly.
Buttmunker, they did not have the technology prior to the 90's to track the exact number of units sold. It was a best guess. Now, they have Nielsen SoundScan. That and internet pre-sales. I could maybe understand your gripes if this was some out of the gate newcomer. But we're talking about Luther Vandross here. Who is a grammy winning, multi platinum, established artist. Not to mention he's got a lot of big names helping him on this project. Add to that his recent illness, which probably contributed to the sales. It could be his last album ever. I'm more disgusted that word of mouth can put crap like Huey Lewis on the top of any chart. Even a year after it's release.
Old 06-21-03, 09:37 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New Jersey, where the state motto should be Leave No Tree Standing
Posts: 2,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Buttmunker
I feel an album should earn the right to sit at the throne. I wish that it could be like in the old days
Earn a right for what? All it is is a sales list. Biggest marketing usually dictates what gets on that list.

And in your pining for the old days, you do realize you're wishing it would go back to the days when labels counted units shipped, not necessarily sold. And when DJs were paid by the labels to pimp certain records, thereby increasing sales. Your beloved Huey Lewis album didn't get to #1 because people discovered it and word-of-mouth propelled it up the charts. It hit #1 because his label paid the major DJs at the time to play it constantly, embedding it into people's skulls, causing them to request more of it and buy it. How is that any different than the marketing the labels do now?

I had no idea anyone cared about the sales charts, they are nothing but tools for the marketing departments of the major labels.
Old 06-21-03, 12:18 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Rogue588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by RevLiver
I had no idea anyone cared about the sales charts, they are nothing but tools for the marketing departments of the major labels.
...and Mariah Carey.
Old 06-21-03, 06:44 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
The Antipodean's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 6,312
Received 50 Likes on 37 Posts
Originally posted by Buttmunker
I do have a problem with Luther being at #1 mainly because I feel an album should earn the right to sit at the throne. I wish that it could be like in the old days when an album had to make its bones and climb the chart as its popularity grew.
You're right. Buttmunker should be the one who decides which albums have earned the right to be listened to by the people who want to buy them. This makes much more sense than the album that ends up being #1 being decided by sales to the people.

And who says quantity = quality anyway? It never has before. I won't even address where Huey Lewis & The News - - falls in this "debate" of yours.
Old 06-21-03, 07:14 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think the deftones should be at #1, their new cd is amazing. But then again, they aren't the most commercial band around.
Old 06-21-03, 09:42 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Buttmunker
What bothers me the most is that Luther Vandross never had a #1 album before now, and now he's so far beyond his prime it isn't even funny. In 50 years, people will look back and say, wow, Luther Vandross's "Dance With My Father" album was his big #1 album, so it must be his absolute best! Meanwhile, it is probably his absolute worst album.

I hate this. The charts have become a total misrepresentation of what's popular these days.

You look back as far as, say, 1991, and you'll see Skid Row at #1 with their album "Slave To The Grind." The album was, in fact, a dismal failure to their debut album two years earlier.
In so many instances, you are only as good as your last album. If its your debut and becomes a hit over time, your next album is going to hit hard fast. If that next album sucks, it will still sell well because of the last one, but then the third album won't do well because even though everyone owned the sophomore effort, they soon realized it sucked.

All theory, but it seems to happen a lot methinks.
Old 06-22-03, 03:52 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I still listen to Slave To The Grind on a regular basis. I think it's good.
Old 06-22-03, 06:14 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 7,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
#1 album? My interest in who's number one goes as far as this thread.
Old 06-22-03, 11:28 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 6,410
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by Daytripper
Buttmunker, they did not have the technology prior to the 90's to track the exact number of units sold. It was a best guess. Now, they have Nielsen SoundScan. That and internet pre-sales.

I'm more disgusted that word of mouth can put crap like Huey Lewis on the top of any chart. Even a year after it's release.
Huey Lewis and the News was just an example of how an album can take time to rise to the top like cream. True, it was pre-SoundScan, and since 1991 the tracking system had changed with SoundScan.

The group Live released their album Throwing Copper on May 14, 1994, where it debuted at #38 in stark contrast to the SoundScan era's thrend of albums debuting at Number One. The album reached the top spot in its 52nd week on the chart - May 6, 1995, almost a year to the day of its release. This occurred not because it was Live, and not because of some marketing strategy, but because it had solid music and songs released to radio that caused word of mouth to reach people.
Old 06-22-03, 12:05 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 24,372
Received 49 Likes on 32 Posts
Originally posted by Buttmunker
Huey Lewis and the News was just an example of how an album can take time to rise to the top like cream. True, it was pre-SoundScan, and since 1991 the tracking system had changed with SoundScan.
Likewise, Def Leppard's "Hysteria" album didn't hit #1 until over a year had passed since its release. It wasn't until the 4th single (pour some sugar on me) that it truly exploded.

Remember, album sales are not a judgment of a piece of work, it's just stating who sold more than who during that ONE WEEK in time. It's not cumulative, either.

Album A could sell 1/4 million a week for 40 weeks
Album B could sell 5 million its first week and then disappear

B easily would be a #1 album, but A sells a total of double and might night ever be #1
Old 06-22-03, 04:48 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,469
Received 119 Likes on 85 Posts
Originally posted by Buttmunker


The group Live released their album Throwing Copper on May 14, 1994, where it debuted at #38 in stark contrast to the SoundScan era's thrend of albums debuting at Number One. The album reached the top spot in its 52nd week on the chart - May 6, 1995, almost a year to the day of its release. This occurred not because it was Live, and not because of some marketing strategy, but because it had solid music and songs released to radio that caused word of mouth to reach people.
Hello!? You're backing my point. Live debuted at number #38 because no one outside of college radio knew who they were at the time. And it was because of a few strong (and overplayed) singles that the album reached number one. Months and months later. This happens all the time. No Doubt anyone? And Live's next album? Debuted in the Top 10, and dropped like a stone. Their follow-up album after that? Didn't debut in the Top 10 at all. We're talking about Live and Luther Vandross here. One artist barely on the radar 10 years. The other, 20 plus.
Old 06-26-03, 06:45 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Rogue588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Buttmunker
My prediction is that Vandross will slide down the chart as quick as a kid on a slide with butter on his ass. Next Thursday the new Billboard chart comes out, and I don't think we'll see Vandross in the Top 10 at all.
Originally posted by Buttmunker
What bothers me the most is that Luther Vandross never had a #1 album before now, and now he's so far beyond his prime it isn't even funny. In 50 years, people will look back and say, wow, Luther Vandross's "Dance With My Father" album was his big #1 album, so it must be his absolute best! Meanwhile, it is probably his absolute worst album.

...that's my point, and this time next week, we'll see my prediction about Vandross's album come true.
Monica Creates A 'Storm' On The Billboard 200

R&B vocalist Monica lays claim the top spot on The Billboard 200 this week with the debut of her third album, "After the Storm." In an overall slow sales week, the J Records set sold 185,000 copies in the U.S., according to Nielsen SoundScan. The total was enough to edge out last week's No. 1, "Dance With My Father," from labelmate Luther Vandross. That set falls to No. 2 with sales of 182,000.

On the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums tally, however, the 1-2 finish is reversed, with Vandross' disc holding fast at No. 1 and Monica's bowing in the second spot. That chart is calculated based on sales at a genre-specific subset of retail stores.

The Billboard 200 showing is Monica's first-ever No. 1 album position, besting the No. 8 debut of her sophomore 1998 release, "The Boy Is Mine" (Arista). That album also debuted at No. 2 on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart.

Last week's No. 2, 3 and 4 albums on The Billboard 200 -- Metallica's "St. Anger" (Elektra), Radiohead's "Hail to the Thief" (Capitol) and Annie Lennox's "Bare" (J), respectively -- each slip one spot. "St. Anger" withstands a 62% drop to 138,000 copies sold to place at No. 3 following its second full week of retail availability. Meanwhile, "Hail to the Thief" slipped 68% to sales of 96,000 albums and drops to No. 4, and "Bare" dropped 39% to come in at No. 5 with 93,000 copies sold.
so...who's gonna start the "Monica at #1? Please!" thread..?
Old 06-26-03, 10:30 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mordred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 12,214
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by kilcher
I still listen to Slave To The Grind on a regular basis. I think it's good.
You're wrong. Slave To The Grind was a great album. I have no idea how Buttmunker can't enjoy it.

They went from a pretty darn good pop-metal band to one of the coolest heavy metal bands on earth in just one album. Thats impressive.

Mordred

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.